Posts in "Terrorism"

I'm sure many people have seen 'The Siege,' starring Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis, but I had not until recently. I have to say -- it's unbelievable that it came out before the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

This movie, released in 1998, deals with the United States government's response to well-cooridinated terrorist attacks on New York City. Without giving away too much plot for those who haven't seen it, let me just say that all the actions of the US government, in regards to "keeping us safe" in post 9/11 America, are predicted almost prophetically. From the role of the CIA in training future terrorists, to the effects of blowback, to the use of torture, even hinting at what America would use the National Guard for...this movie hits the nail on the head. I recommend it not only for personal viewing, but it is an excellent movie for your chapter to show on campus. It would definitely evoke deep discussion. Just watch it and you'll see what I mean.

The phrase "blood-thirsty" is most commonly used to describe those individuals with a lust for killing, and/or individuals who think that violence is the answer to everything. Therefore, it seems to be the perfect phrase to describe the neoconservative foreign policy and the Bush Doctrine.

Contrary to popular neoconservative belief, this doctrine is not a preventative measure taken by the Bush Administration to keep Americans safe from terrorists, but it is a foreign policy that strongly advocates imperialistic acts of unnecessary military aggression.

In other words, this doctrine promotes the cliché that "the best defense is a good offense." This may be true in football, but it is certainly not true at all in foreign policy, especially when "our enemies" are more than willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill others. This is a very dangerous enemy to have, especially for the American civilians.

Nathan Fox-Helser, who is both a member of Wake Forest Young Americans for Liberty and a new author at the left-libertarian blog Rethinking the State, wrote a paper on American foreign policy in Pakistan for a political science class he took this semester. I've been working on building the Wake Forest YAL Wiki recently as a tool to be used by future chapters, and I got Nathan to send me the paper, which I converted into a wiki article. The paper contains an interesting analysis of the past and current situation in Pakistan, as well as several conclusions that are reached based on this analysis. Nathan's thesis statement is as follows:

Understanding the causes of these discontinuities in interest and conflicts in views demonstrates that America needs to act skeptically, think innovatively, remember the costs of policies and deflate its policy, and, all the while, avoid international abandonment.

The Southern Avenger is controversial as always in this video, the full text of which may be found here. To avoid potential angry comments, please keep in mind as you listen that Hunter is not saying that terrorism is justified or equating the tea parties with terrorism.

Far from it.

He's simply arguing -- as Ron Paul (and indeed the CIA and the 9/11 Commission) have -- that we should look at the motives of those we deem "terrorists" so we can respond to their crimes rationally...and that both the left and right have serious blind spots where this is concerned.

“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an anonymous American official. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The anonymous official then added:

The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone.

Awlaki was born and raised in new Mexico and has been hiding in Yemen for several years.

I've written before about constitutional reasons to guarantee basic rights to those accused of terrorism. But even discounting those reasons, it is still unconstitutional to try suspected terrorists in military tribunals. Why? For the simple reason that we have not declared war -- and "just calling it a ‘war’ on terror doesn’t count."

In fact,

no president has yet to appear before Congress to ask for a Declaration of War – nor has Congress ever made such as declaration. Therefore, there can simply be no Constitutional justification to create military tribunals to try alleged enemy combatants as they are enemy combatants in a war that Congress has never declared.

This is not based on unsubstantiated legal opinion, but in specific case law: "[T]he Supreme Court ruled in Ex Parte Quirin that a formal declaration of war isthe legal prerequisite to the government’s use of the tools of war."

This weekend, Americans were treated to something new: Barack Obama defending his war policies by suggesting they merely continue his predecessor's practices. The defense is illuminating, not least for its implicit recognition that George W. Bush has more credibility on fighting terrorists than does the sitting president....

"I think that the most important thing for the public to understand," he [said], "is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush administration handled them all through 9/11."

Wait...being like Bush on terror is a good thing? I thought that was one area of policy where Obama was going to chart a totally new course, repudiating the lack of respect for the rule of law displayed by his predecessor. We all remember that, right?

When Mr. Obama arrived in the Oval Office his first official act was to order the closing of Guantanamo in the manner of Christ cleansing the temple. Attorney General Eric Holder soon followed by opening a criminal investigation of the CIA's interrogators. And everywhere he went, Mr. Obama told anyone who would listen that when it came to terror, he would be the anti-Bush.